Microsoft has already been exposed using CWD in the past as part of their fake astroturfing attacks:

http://techrights.org/2009/05/04/consumer-watchdog-exposed/

I'm just saying, as with anything, always consider the source.

I use http://www.countryipblocks.net/ -- they seem to do a pretty decent job of keeping their database up-to-date. It will also provide the output in varying formats (net/mask, CIDR, ip range, etc).

Yeah, but it's also nice to be able to recognize the shills and nutters. Whenever I read a report or analysis written by Enderle, Lyons or Didio I immediately consider the opposite of whatever they claim might be true. Whenever I hear anything written by O'Gara I assume it's outlight lies and spin.

But I've seen their eyes light up at 10's and 20's.

Is that this case is now before a jury that knows absolutely nothing about SCO's past history (as is with any jury trial I guess). In the pretrial hearings SCO was asking that any juror that had a college degree be disqualified. What I think we are going to see here is a plaintiff that will tell a sob story about those mean Novell and IBM corporations that ruined their businesses and lives. How their stock price was driven down into the ground until they were delisted, how they lost all their customer base, how they lost their good name in the market, how they had to start eating ramen and mac everyday, etc. etc.

The point being is that anyone who has observed this case from the beginning (and who is not paid by Microsoft or SCO) has mostly all come to the same conclusion: That SCO are corporate raiders looking to cash in on the success of Linux. Everyone, including some inside SCO have also come to the conclusion that no parts of Linux infringe upon anyone's proprietary code or was misappropriated.

This trial is three weeks long. It disturbs me that those who have not had a chance to be privy to SCO's dishonesty and malice could possibly side with them.

Yes, that and she places a great amount of value on her privacy. People should try and respect that of course.

What Maureen did was deplorable and for that she forever tainted her reputation as a journalist. The Internet never forgets.

Can she? Sure, you can effectively sue anyone you want in this country for just about any reason you can dream up. Would she win? Who knows. But the truth is PJ has way too much class and dignity to draw out a fight in the court systems for this. In every article she writes she always takes the high ground and always attempts to point out the FACTS of a case and uncover the truth. She puts a great deal of emphasis on truth -- taking great pains to uncover all details and facts of a particular argument.

Conversely, at every opportunity, SCO has used sneaky, underhanded, backroom tactics. They have used rumor, inuendo, lies and gossip. The fact that these folks are LDS mormons freak me out because they are the exact opposite of what I always knew about mormons.

In all seriousness, I'm proud to live in a Microsoft and Apple-free household.

Maybe someday when they realize how harmful DRM really is I'll take another look.

Nonsense like this isn't convincing me I'm wrong.

Bye.

I saw Craig speak at the Usenix Symposium on Internet Security in San Antonio back in 1998. I completely forget to this day what his speech was about but I know enough to remember that it doesn't matter. The speech was full of inane misdirected statements, unproven research and illogical conclusions. After speaking a while I think I, and a lot of other people stopped listening to him and managed to allow themselves to be distracted by other things. But one thing I do recall that was amusing to see was Tom Ptacek -- who probably couldn't take much nonsense from this bag of wind -- started calling shenanigans on Craig's flawed conclusions and made a public spectacle of him. To this day I think it was one of the most amusing conference moments I've ever had the pleasure to witness.

I'm almost willing to believe this was a statement Mundie made that falls in one of the following categories:

* It was a joke

* It was a statement taken out of context

* A bad joke taken out of context

If this is something Mundie is serious about then this is a frightening insight into how Microsoft folks think. Besides being an outright assault onto the First Amendment there's so many arguments against this that it seems like a harmless strawman argument.

It's significant to note that Microsoft are probably largely responsible for introducing the hordes of clueless newbies onto the Internet -- moreso than any other factor, EVEN AOL. Given their culpability in this mess I have a suggestion, an amendment to their idea if you will:

A mandatory Internet-use license that is ONLY compulsary if you are a Microsoft Windows end user.

Lets see how much Microsoft likes the "Internet License" idea then.

History has already demonstrated how Microsoft reacts when they are fully in control of technology. How do you think they would act if they are in control of vital Internet search results? Do you think they would serve the interests of the general public or their own pecuniary interests? Do you think they would stilfe search results that are critical of Microsoft or promote true free speech? Do you think if they were the dominant search engine they would use it to leverage themselves unfairly into other markets or compete fairly?

I don't need to answer these questions; as I already said history has shown us what they are willing to do. I think we the users have the final say though. I use Google and Yahoo! and have found that bing results, while typically fair aren't necessarily much better. As a matter of preference I have no reason to switch from Google, et al, and won't, even if the top 1,000 top-dogs switch to Microsoft. If that happens they lost me, I didn't lose them.

The only reason I do not own an iPhone is that AT&T pulled too much crap like overcharging customers and forcing them into restrictive agreements. It's unfortunate that Verizon is playing ball like this, I am unlikely now to actually buy a DROID unless they make their phones available on the Sprint network.

My $0.02.

"CAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHNNN!!!"

Why redact the headhunter and headhunting firm's name from your story? If the facts are true it seems they should stand on their own merits. I say spill their name and let it serve as a warning to all. Even better, submit your story with all of the relevant facts to The Consumerist.

Apologies in advance to David Letterman:

* Pin the tail on the Ballmer

* Simon says "UAC needs your permission to continue"

* Monopoly

* Your files in a haystack

* Twenty clippy questions

* Musical thrown chairs

* Darl McBride pinata

* Red Light, Green Light, Blue Screen

* DRM may I?

* Phone Home Scruples